302 R. L. COATES AND M. D. HORTON J.

SPACECRAFT

3
Jenks, J. C., " Acoustic Instability," ABL Quarterly Progress Propellants," AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 6, June 1964, pp. 1119-
Report 59, July 30, 1967, Hercules, Inc., Cumberland, Md. 1122.
4 9
Trubridge, G., "Tentative Prediction Criteria for Acoustic Oberg, C. L., "Acoustic Instability in Propellant Com-
Combustion Instability in Solid Propellant Rocket Motors," bustion," unpublished Ph.D. thesis, June 1965, University of
Third ICRPG Combustion Conference, Cocoa Beach, Fla., Oct. Utah.
17-21, 1966. 10
Eisel, J. L., personal communication, April 13, 1967.
5
Price, E. W., " Axial Mode, Intermediate Frequency Com- 11
Morse, P. M., Vibration and Sound, McGraw-Hill, New
bustion Instability in Solid Propellant Rocket Motors," Paper York, 1948, pp. 402-403.
64-146, 1964, AIAA. 12
Horton, M. D., "Testing the Dynamic Stability of Solid
6
Brownlee, W. G., "Nonlinear Axial Combustion Instability Propellants; Techniques and Data," Rept. 8596, Aug. 1964,
in Solid Propellant Motors," AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, Feb. Naval Weapon Center, China Lake, Calif.
1964. pp. 275-284. 13
7
Dickinson, L. A., Capener, E. L. and Kier, R. J., "Research Slates, R. O., Buffum, F. G., and Dehority, G. L., " Acoustic
on Unstable Combustion in Solid Propellant Rockets," Stanford Attenuation in Resonant Model-Rocket Motors," ICRPG/AIAA
Research Institute Report, Contract AF 49 (638)-1367, Jan. 13, Second Solid Propulsion Conference, Anaheim Calif., June 1967.
14
1965. Stanford Univ. Epstein, P. S. and Carhart, R. R., "The Absorption of Sound
8
Coates, R. L., Horton, M. D., and Ryan, N. W., "T-Burner in Suspensions and Emulsions," Journal of the Acoustical Society
Method of Determining the Acoustic Admittance of Burning of America, Vol. 25, 1953, pp. 553-565.
Downloaded by 2405:8100:8000:5ca1::1e3:651a on December 13, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.29589

MARCH 1969 J. SPACECRAFT VOL. 6, NO. 3

Apollo Entry Aerodynamics

R. S. CROWDER* AND J. D. MOOTE|
North American Rockwell Corporation, Downey, Calif.

Command module aerodynamic characteristics during entry phases of Apollo missions 1,

2, 4, and 6 are compared with wind-tunnel predictions. The Apollo 4 mission provided the
first look at the aerodynamics of a full-scale blunt lifting body during atmospheric entry at
lunar return velocity. Methods used for flight data analysis and for correction of wind-
tunnel data are included. Aerodynamic performance is discussed in terms of lift/drag
ratio (L/D) and trim angle of attack because these parameters are of primary concern for
trajectory planning and thermal protection design. Prior to the flight test program, aero-
dynamic coefficients and trim attitude were considered constant above Mach 10, except for
minor variations due to center-of-gravity movement during entry. Flight data indicated a
significant increasing trend in trim angle of attack, and a resulting decrease in L/D, above
Mach 10. Current predicted aerodynamic characteristics presented reflect a correction
applied to the pitching moment data for Mach numbers greater than 10.

Nomenclature 6,4> = Euler pitch and roll angles, respectively

p = air density
C = aerodynamic coefficient
h = altitude
Subscripts
L/D = lift-to-drag ratio
M — Mach number A = structural axis system (XA = 1000 at main heat
t = time shield structural moldline), or axial force
q = dynamic pressure ABL = ablator moldline
Re = Reynolds number B = body axis system
V — velocity D,L,N = drag, lift, and normal forces, respectively
X,Y,Z = longitudinal, lateral, and vertical body axes, d = based on command module main heat shield
. . . respectively diameter
X Y Z ) = i = inertial axis system
*v \r'rr r orthogonal velocity and acceleration coordinates
A,r,z ) niA = pitching moment about command module apex
a = angle of attack (XA = 1141.25)
7 = flight path angle R = relative to earth
A = differential length S = based on command module main heat shield area
d = angle between command module main heat shield 1,2 = Before and behind normal shock, respectively
and structural (afterbody) centerlines

Presented as Paper 68-1008 at the AIAA 5th Annual Meeting Introduction

and Technical Display, Philadelphia, Pa., October 21-24, 1968;
submitted October 17, 1968; revision received December 23,
1968. This work was accomplished under NASA Contract
I N the Mercury missions, the entry/recovery phase from
near-earth orbits was initiated by a retro maneuver which
produced a subcircular entry velocity and the proper negative
NAS9-150.
* Project Engineer, Apollo Aerodynamics, Space Division. flight path angle. Landing within the designated recovery
Associate Fellow AIAA. area was assured by initiating the retro-firing at a predeter-
t Member of the Technical Staff, Apollo Aerodynamics, Space mined position during the selected orbit. After retro-fire, the
Division. spacecraft was committed to a particular trajectory, because
 APOLLO ENTRY AERODYNAMICS 303
MARCH 1969

NOTE: CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES INCLUDE

A T M O S P H E R I C DENSITY D E V I A T I O N S
POSITIVE LIFT
UNDERSHOOT
N E G A T I V E LIFT
OVERSHOOT
ALTITUDE
INERTIAL VELOCITY.

CORRIDOR

\
\ CURRENT
///
/ / /
\ TARGETING
\
\
\
REQM'T
/ ''//
//
/'/'
1 1 \ 1 /A< 1 ! Fig. 3 Apollo CM shape and trim attitude aerodynamic
-4.5 -5.0 -5.5 -6.0 -6.5 -7.0 -7.5
force relationships.
I N E R T I A L ENTRY r ~ D E G .

Fig. 1 Effect of aerodynamic performance on entry flight crossrange corrections up to ±200 naut miles can be made if
path angle. continuous "lift vector up 7 ' is not required to reach the
desired downrange landing target.
Downloaded by 2405:8100:8000:5ca1::1e3:651a on December 13, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.29589

no atmosphere steering capability was available. Adequate

astronaut safety was provided without aerodynamic maneu- Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Apollo
vering capability. Command Module
During the Gemini program the spacecraft were provided
with a small amount of atmospheric maneuvering capability Lift is produced with the Apollo sphere-cone configuration
through the use of an L/D achieved by displacing the center when the axis of symmetry is not aligned with the velocity
of gravity (e.g.) from the vehicle longitudinal centerline. Al- vector (a. 9* 180°). This asymmetric trim condition is pro-
though the Gemini missions were more complex than Mercury duced by displacing the e.g. from the axis of symmetry. A
missions, this maneuvering capability was not absolutely statically stable trim attitude with the blunt heat shield
necessary, because the entry interface conditions were very forward is produced by placing the e.g. relatively close to the
similar to Mercury's, i.e., retro from near-earth orbit. blunt face (Fig. 3). The aerodynamic characteristics could
The Apollo lunar missions have more stringent entry con- only be approximated by available analytical methods. A
ditions: 1) supercircular velocities of approximately 36,000 wind-tunnel test program1 was therefore conducted. Figure
fps, 2) landing site variation for weather avoidance require- 4 presents a comparison of wind-tunnel test conditions and the
ments due to longer missions and preflight determination of command module flight regime. Although the maneuvering
entry position, and 3) entry flight path angle guidance capabilities are most important at VR > 15,000 fps, most of
accuracy of ±0.4°. Therefore, the Apollo spacecraft require the wind-tunnel testing was accomplished at lower velocities
an atmospheric maneuvering capability to 1) prevent skip-out because of facility limitations. This situation did not create
in the event of a shallow entry flight path angle, 2) prevent significant dissatisfaction with the test program, because
excessive atmospheric decelerations in the event of a steep previous experience and research had indicated that blunt-
entry flight path angle, and 3) provide ranging capability for body aerodynamic coefficients remained essentially constant
any combination of entry interface flight conditions within above Mach 6. The flight test results did not verify this
the tolerances of the lunar return trajectory. indication.
With L/D 7^ 0, lift direction is controlled by a reaction Figure 5 presents the results of testing2 a symmetrical
control system to provide the required command module entry command module model (without protuberances) at Mach
maneuvering capability. The effect of L/D on the allowable numbers of 6, 8, and 10. These coefficients are based on the
7» is shown in Fig. 1. The allowable corridor is very small at reference diameter (d = 12.83 ft) and area (£ = 129.4 ft2) of
L/D = 0 (less than required due to the ±0.4° accuracy of the the command module main heat shield. These data showed
Apollo guidance system). The desired L/D range is 0.25 to little variation with M and therefore were designated as M > 6
0.40, and the current target is M).30. aerodynamic characteristics. The pitching moment coeffi-
Figure 2 presents the ranging capability of the Apollo cient (CmA) curve indicates a neutrally unstable vehicle at
spacecraft. The 3500-naut-mile maximum range limit is a = 180° because the moments are referenced to the theo-
determined by command-module subsystem limitations. The retical cone apex. However, when the moments are trans-
landing range for a zero-L/D entry is shown by a single dashed ferred to a typical command-module e.g. location, a stable
line, indicating no ranging capability, for any given 7$. The trim condition is obtained.
crossranging capability is not shown on Fig. 2; however. To apply the wind-tunnel results to the flight vehicles, the
heat shield asymmetry, actual e.g., and major protuberances
INITIAL ENTRY A L T I T U D E . 400.000 FT
O APOLLO FLIGHT NO'S
INITIAL ENTRY V E L O C I T Y . V j = 36.000 FPS
D

RANGE CAPABILITY \ SUBSYSTEMS

E N V E L O P E (a) L/D = 0.3 \ DES. LIMIT

0.35 RANGE

0.30 ENTRY INTERFACE CONDITIONS

0.25 J
MINIMUM (A) HIGH ALT. LES A B O R T S
RANGE (B) SM RCS & SPS A B O R T S
, (SUSTAINED ( C ) O R B I T A L ENTRY
J G LIMIT) (D) LUNAR RETURN
-6 -7 -8 J
10.000 20.000 30,000 40,000
r ; - ENTRY FLIGHT PATH A N G L E ~ D E G .
EARTH RELATIVE VELOCITY. V R ~FEET/SEC
Fig. 2 Effect of aerodynamic performance on range
capability. Fig. 4 Apollo CM atmospheric entry flight regime.
 304 R. S. CROWDER AND J. D. MOOTE J. SPACECRAFT

M =^6
AX
A B L = 1.79"
AZABL=.2505"
5 = .1365°

P R I M A R Y TRIM
LIMIT LINE

~l40160 180 " 140 160

a
180 " 140^ 160 180
a a
HEAT SHIELD ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Fig. 5 Symmetrical Apollo CM aerodynamic coefficients.

Fig. 7 Trim L/D - center-of-gravity relationships.

of the flight vehicle had to be accounted for. Figure 6 shows

the differences between flight vehicles and the wind-tunnel
Downloaded by 2405:8100:8000:5ca1::1e3:651a on December 13, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.29589

direction is coincident with the command-module e.g. offset

models. Because the differences are relatively small, Fig. 6 direction (+Z for Apollo command module axis system), bank
was drawn out of scale to give a better indication of the angle variation is obtained by rolling the vehicle about VR.
asymmetry, i.e., the variable thickness of the ablation mate- The accuracy of the L/D calculation is primarily a function
rial. The wind-tunnel data are corrected for these differences of the accuracy of the IMU and the postflight data correction
to produce the L/D-c.g. relationships for a flight vehicle, with- methods. Postflight data correction is required if the final
out protuberances, shown in Fig. 7; L/D increments due to descent velocity (on main parachutes) and landing position
protuberances such as umbilical fairings, antennae, and the indicated by the IMU are significantly different from actual
local ablator build-ups were determined by wind-tunnel test values; i.e., descent velocity equals approximately 30 fps,
and are applied to Fig. 7 as required for a particular vehicle. landing altitude equals zero and latitude and longitude as
The e.g. movement needed to satisfy an L/D requirement is defined by the recovery forces. Radar-defined state vectors
accomplished by equipment relocation or ballasting. (position, velocity, and flight path angle) also help to define
correction requirements. The accuracy of the L/D computed
Flight Test Data Reduction Method from the corrected entry trajectory data is estimated to be
±0.01.
The spacecraft's inertial measurement unit (IMU) pro- The L/D can also be computed from earth-fixed radar data.
vides the three acceleration components, the three velocity In this case, the vehicle velocity and position components are
components, and the three position components in an obtained in an earth-fixed rectangle coordinate system and
inertial rectangular coordinate system at 2-sec intervals the vehicle accelerations are computed by differentiation of
and records them on board. Information such as shown V(t) curves. These accelerations include the gravity compo-
in Fig. 8 is therefore available throughout entry. From nents which must be removed before the L/D computations
the position components the vehicle altitude and position can can proceed. Because of the communications blackout, in-
be computed, and hence the local inertial velocity of the cluding the command-module transponder, acceptable radar
earth's atmosphere can be determined. By vectorially com- entry trajectory data have not been obtained from Apollo
bining this velocity with the components of vehicle inertial flights to date.
velocity, the resultant earth relative velocity VR and Figure 9 presents a typical set of computed L/D data points.
flight path angle 7^ are obtained. The three acceleration A continuous vehicle roll rate during the 2-sec recording
components are then resolved into two components, one interval of the G & N reduces the accuracy of the L/D
parallel to VR and the other perpendicular to VR. Since calculations. The vehicle attitude also oscillates around the
these accelerations are proportional to the aerodynamic forces, trim point, but actual L/D excursions cannot be greater than
their ratio is equal to L/D. The IMU accelerometers do not approximately ±0.04 due to reaction control system (RCS)
sense gravitational forces; i.e., they read zero in space if the rate damping. Since the L/D at the trim attitude should be
rocket engines are off. The angle between the "lift" accel- a relatively smooth function of time, fairing of these data is
eration vector (perpendicular to VR) and a vertical plane permissible, and the solid line represents a reasonable estimate
through VR is defined as the vehicle bank angle, zero being in of trim L/D. All L/D data were faired in this manner before
the "up" direction as shown in Fig. 3. Since the "lift" plotting as functions of other parameters.

SPACECRAFT ABLATOR
THICKNESS F R O M G&N IMU
OR V E L O C I T Y
DIFFERENTIATION
M O D E L & SPACECRAFT

SPACECRAFT STRUCTURE

SPACECRAFT
ABLATOR THICKNESS7
AXA

Fig. 6 Comparison of wind-tunnel models and full-scale

spacecraft. Fig. 8 Flight data reduction procedure.
 MARCH 1969 APOLLO ENTRY AERODYNAMICS 305

COMPUTED L/D FROM /PREDICTED APOLLO 2 a

-J ^ < 2 0 PSF L- FLIGHT DATA
E D I T E D OUT P O I N T S
W I N D TUNNEL D E F I N I T I O N
" .30 —

L/D LESS THAN '

ACTUAL BECAUSE
OF VEHICLE ROLL RATE
155 160
OMPUTATION ERROR TRIM A N G L E O F A T T A C K , a ~ D E G

Fig. 11 L/D -angle-of-attack relationship.

4600 4700 4800
G R O U N D ELAPSED TIME, - S E C .
The mechanics of the revision are illustrated by referring to
Fig. 9 Typical example of data smoothing and editing. Figs. 7, 12, and 13. The solid lines on Fig. 12 present the
end-points of the constant-L/D lines on Fig. 7 (XA = 1037.0
Flight Evaluations in. and 1047.0 in.). The Apollo e.g. location was plotted on
Fig. 7 and a line (dashed) was drawn through it and parallel
The detailed evaluation4-5 of flight L/D was accomplished to the constant-L/D lines. The end-points defined by this
after the Apollo 2 entry flight of August 25, 1966, because the line were plotted on Fig. 12 at the Apollo 2, Mach 25 L/D
Apollo I3 did not contain an IMU, and the required data were (minus the umbilical fairing L/D increment). The dashed
Downloaded by 2405:8100:8000:5ca1::1e3:651a on December 13, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.29589

therefore not available. The preflight prediction of L/D for lines drawn through these points and parallel to the original
Apollo 2 was made from wind-tunnel test results. First the solid lines were used to define the end-points of the constant-
predicted e.g. location at the entry interface (XA = 1040.3 in., L/D lines on Fig. 13. By using this procedure the rate of
Ze.g. = 5.2 in.) was plotted on Fig. 7, and an L/D of 0.308 was change of L/D as a function of e.g. movement as determined
obtained for a clean command module at Mach 25. An L/D from wind-tunnel tests was retained; however, the absolute
increment of 0.014 was added to this because the Apollo 2
command module had an external umbilical fairing at its X A = 1037.0"
maximum diameter. This increment was determined by
wind-tunnel tests. The change in L/D between Mach 25 and
Mach 6 is due to the predicted e.g. change caused by RCS X A = 1047.0"

propellant usage and ablator burn-off. The L/D prediction

for lower Mach numbers was determined using plots similar II ,
to Fig. 7, which were also based on wind-tunnel data. The
accuracy bands in Fig. 10 include tolerances on predicted e.g. X A = 1037.0V
X A = 1047.0"
location, construction tolerances (ablator thicknesses and
assembly tolerances), and tolerances on configuration differ-
ences in addition to wind-tunnel data accuracies.
Also shown on Fig. 10 is the L/D vs M curve derived from
flight data and the divergence of the flight data from the .2 .3 .4
nominal predicted line. Because of the good agreement at TRIM LIFT TO D R A G RATIO. L/D
3 < M < 6, where adequate wind-tunnel testing was accom-
plished, it was assumed that no gross errors in e.g. determina- Fig. 12 L/D - Zc.g. relationships.
tion or asymmetry calculations were present. The obvious
conclusion was therefore that the assumption of constant blunt- value of L/D at a particular e.g. location was changed to agree
body aerodynamic coefficients above Mach 6 was in error. with Apollo 2 data.
It is apparent from Fig. 11 that the trim a prediction was also The discrepancy between the predicted and the flight L/D-a
in error, but the predicted L/D-a relationship was approxi- relationship indicated in Fig. 11 was not considered sufficient
mately correct. It was therefore concluded that Cm-a rela- to warrant a change. The L/D-a relationship shown in Fig.
tionship and the resulting trim attitude were changed by some 13 is therefore identical to Fig. 7. For Apollo 4 the predicted
flow phenomena which apparently increased in effectiveness L/D Sit Mach 25 was determined by defining the clean com-
with increasing M. mand module L/D using Fig. 13 and the predicted e.g. at the
Analytical definition of these flow phenomena has not yet entry interface (XA = 1039.3 in., Zc.g. = 6.6 in.). The wind-
been accomplished. However, a revised prediction of Apollo tunnel-derived L/D increment for an added umbilical fairing
L/D-e.g. relationships was based on the straight-line fairing of plus a local heat shield ablator build-up was combined with
the Apollo 2 L/D data in Fig. 10. It was decided to continue this value to define the nominal L/D plotted on Fig. 14.
to use the Mach 4 wind-tunnel data and to modify the Mach 6 The predictions for M < 4 were based on wind-tunnel test
data to agree with Apollo 2 results at Mach 25. Predictions
between these points would be by straight-line interpolation. M = 25 1*29.5.)
X A 0 1 = 1.79"

1044

z P R I M A R Y TRIM
o
LIMIT LINE
E 1042
<
x
1040
'FLIGHT DATA
(MANUALLY SMOOTHED
I C
STRAIGHT LINE FAIRING OF
AND EDITED)
FLIGHT DATA (BASIS FOR
APOLLO 4 PREDICTIONS)
J_
10 15 20 25 30

MACH NUMBER, M

Fig. 10 L/D - Mach-number comparisons for Apollo 2. Fig. 13 Trim L/D -center-of-gravity relationships.
 306 R. S. CROWDER AND J. D. MOOTE J. SPACECRAFT

/FLIGHT DATA
/(MANUALLY SMOOTHED
AND EDITED)
POST F L I G H T P R E D I C T I O N
REVISION (BASIS FOR
APOLLO 6 PREDICTIONS)

15 20 25
MACH NUMBER, M 5.000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
E A R T H R E L A T I V E V E L O C I T Y , VR FPS
Fig. 14 L/D -Mach-number comparisons for Apollo 4.
Fig. 17 Flight L/D vs velocity.

results. For M > 25 (above Apollo 2 flight conditions) the

straight-line prediction between Mach 4 and Mach 25 was closer agreement with the Apollo 4 and 6 flight data for
extrapolated to Mach 36. The general level of the flight data 10 < M < 29.5 as indicated on Fig. 15.
is above the predicted nominal, but the slope between Mach 4 Figure 16 presents the L/D vs M prediction for the entry
and Mach 25 indicated by Apollo 2 data is verified. For phase of future Apollo missions. These command modules
Downloaded by 2405:8100:8000:5ca1::1e3:651a on December 13, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.29589

M > 25, a flattening of the curve is apparent. (This trend do not have significant external protuberances, so that for
was also indicated by Apollo 2 data but was not incorporated Mach > 29.5, the nominal L/D prediction comes directly
in the predictions pending further verification.) Because the from Fig. 13, and the Mach 10 value comes directly from
flight data were well within the prediction tolerance bands Fig. 7. These command modules will be configured to pro-
(except above Mach 33), the only change to the prediction duce a nominal L/D of about 0.30 at M > 29.5. A new
procedures for Apollo 6 was to apply Fig. 13 for If > 25, prediction tolerance band was determined for future missions
which results in constant aerodynamic predictions for M > 25.
Table 1 L/D prediction tolerances for future missions
M A C H 10 W I N D T U N N E L D A T A L/D tolerance
FLIGHT DATA ( M A N U A L L Y S M O O T H E D AND E D I T E D )
POST F L I G H T P R E D I C T I O N Accuracy of L/D data from previous flights
REVISION (BASIS FOR Flight instrumentation /data ±0.010
APOLLO 7 PREDICTIONS)
Center-of-gravity location ±0.013
Main heat shield/afterbody centeiiine mating ±0.013
Main heat shield cant determination ±0.007
Configuration uncertainties for future flights
Center-of-gravity location ±0.006
Main heat shield/afterbody centeiiine mating ±0.013
15 20
Main heat shield cant determination ±0.005
MACH NUMBER, M
Configurational differences (original/final) ±0.005
Variation in expendables ±0.012
Fig. 15 L/D -Mach-number comparison for Apollo 6. Root-sum-square = ±0.030

For Apollo 6 the L/D predictions were derived in the same based on flight data accuracy (rather than wind-tunnel data
manner as for Apollo 4 except that constant L/D was predicted accuracy previously used) in conjunction with configurational
for M > 25. These predictions are presented along with tolerances (Table 1).
flight data6 in Fig. 15. Again the flight data lie above the It is not within the scope of this paper to attempt to explain
predicted nominal, but well within the prediction tolerance the flow phenomena which cause the obviously real variations
bands. in L/D throughout the Apollo entry hypersonic flight regime.
The wind-tunnel data represented by Fig. 7 were obtained However, Fig. 17 shows the flight L/D vs VR, the parameter
at Mach numbers of 6, 8, and 10. Reappraisal of these data that appears to give the best correlation from the standpoints
indicated agreement with the revised L/D prediction at Mach of fairing a first-order curve through the data. Figures 18
10. It was therefore decided to utilize Fig. 7 for future Mach and 19 present L/D vs normal-shock density ratio and the
10 predictions, so that all aerodynamic coefficients could more Reynolds number behind the normal shock, respectively.
accurately be defined at this Mach number. A second pre- Explanation of L/D variations in terms of these parameters
diction revision applicable to future missions was the decision does not look promising because of the slope reverses and
to shift the application of Fig. 13 data from Mach > 25 to
Mach > 29.5. This change was made primarily to produce

± .030 T O L E R A N C E BAND

15 20 10 15
MACH NUMBER, M N O R M A L S H O C K DENSITY R A T I O , P

Fig. 16 L/D predictions for future Apollo missions. Fig. 18 Flight L/D vs normal-shock density ratio.
Downloaded by 2405:8100:8000:5ca1::1e3:651a on December 13, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.29589

MARCH 1969 APOLLO ENTRY AERODYNAMICS 307

assumption of constant aerodynamic characteristics through-

out the Apollo hypersonic flight regime was not validated by
flight results. The trend of decreasing L/D with increasing
velocity, first indicated by Apollo 2 data, was verified by
Apollo 4 and 6 flights. The increased confidence in prediction
capabilities developed during the flight test program has
resulted in reducing the prediction tolerances for future Apollo
missions from ±0.035 to ±0.030.
In general, the L/D trend appears to correlate best with
velocity. Theoretical investigations are continuing.

103 104 105 10G References

REYNOLDS NUMBER BEHIND NORMAL SHOCK. R e 2 d
1
Moseley, W. C., Jr. and Martino, J. C.," Apollo Wind Tunnel
Fig. 19 Flight L/D vs Reynolds number behind the Program—Historical Development of General Configurations,"
normal shock. TN D-3748, Dec. 1966, NASA.
2
Moseley, W. C., Jr., Moore, R. H., Jr., and Hughes, J. E.,
" Stability Characteristics of the Apollo Command Module,"
double values. Several other correlation parameters and TN D-3890, March 1967, NASA.
3a
Postlaunch Report for Mission AS 201 (Apollo Spacecraft
theories are being considered. 009)," Rept. MSC-A-R-66-4, May 6, 1966, NASA.
4
"Postlaunch Report for Mission AS 202 (Apollo Spacecraft
Conclusions Oil)," Rept. MSC-A-R-66-5, Oct. 12, 1966, NASA.
5
Hillje, E. R., "Entry Flight Aerodynamics from Apollo
The aerodynamic characteristics of the Apollo command Mission AS 202," TN D-4185, Oct. 1967, NASA.
module as defined by the wind-tunnel program correlate well •"Apollo 6 Mission Report," Rept. MSC-PA-R-68-9, May
with flight data up to Mach 10. However, the preflight 1968, NASA.